Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq: Foxnews.com

[galentjm]

Then I guess we should expect some sort of announcement from the White House and Defense Dept, that we've found what we were looking for.

Why? So the left can claim its an election year publicity stunt?

[@DCGoldPants]

If the evidence is that strong. It won't matter what anybody says.

You know if they found what they were looking for. They would put our largest Aircraft Carriers on wheels, and parade them around the beltway once a week until jan of 09.

Not to mention all the supporters who are waiting for that announcement.

[bird_1972]

In reading this thread (and countless others since I've discovered the Tailgate), the only thing I'm convinced of is NOT that liberals are bad or conservatives are bad, but that the US is it's own worst enemy.

The polar opposites of the political spectrum in the US, as represented here by a select few posters, have combined to create an antagonistic rather than a cooperative discourse regarding the direction of the country. No wonder we can't get anything done around here. Make no mistake, it isn't liberals or conservatives alone that will lead to the downfall of this country - it's both of them.

[Popeman38]

In reading this thread (and countless others since I've discovered the Tailgate), the only thing I'm convinced of is NOT that liberals are bad or conservatives are bad, but that the US is it's own worst enemy.

The polar opposites of the political spectrum in the US, as represented here by a select few posters, have combined to create an antagonistic rather than a cooperative discourse regarding the direction of the country. No wonder we can't get anything done around here. Make no mistake, it isn't liberals or conservatives alone that will lead to the downfall of this country - it's both of them.

This is perhaps the first political post that I have seen that I agree with 100%. Well said Bird!

[gchwood]

you know what is funny, people at the begining of this thread were asking for more sources in the WMD find, well apparently it has been well documented because I went to yahoo and searched for "WMDs found in Iraq" and I found tons of articles regarding WMD finds in Iraq

[SEF]

The entertainment value of wingnuttery is endless. Thanks for that, anyway.

[flordvader]

I agree with bird 1972!

The whole Iraq invasion confuses me. Initially, it seemed it was about these WMDs, but now it's called the War on Terror, or freedom for Iraq. Does anybody know what it's really about? And if so, what are the conditions for victory? How do we know when we've won?

[Thiebear]

I agree with bird 1972!

The whole Iraq invasion confuses me. Initially, it seemed it was about these WMDs, but now it's called the War on Terror, or freedom for Iraq. Does anybody know what it's really about? And if so, what are the conditions for victory? How do we know when we've won?

There were 4-5 different reasons given: With humanitary reasons leading off the State of the Union i believe.

The WMD thing was a complete debacle... and it doesnt appear the latest find is of much value than to point out that Saddam didnt destroy the weapons he said he did but couldnt prove...

There are 4-5 reasons we should do the same for the Sudan: AND if the UN said no I know Chomerics and others that tout the Cowboy against the will of the UN statements wouldnt say a word... But alas, there is no oil in the Sudan so its relegated to the French who can't do anything right apparently.

[Baculus]

Haven't the Dems always said the the war was unjustified because we never found the WMDs that we were looking for?

So now that they have been found, the war is unjustified because the Republicans said that the war wasn't about WMDs.

Seems like a certain party is changing their toon, the exact reason why their presidential candidate was defeated by the largest margin in the history of the popular vote in the US

Were these the WMDs that we were seeking? I've always asked and pondered how come it hasn't been pointed out that many of the WMDs would actually be bad due to the age and sitting in the desert. I'd like to read more to see if we are actually finding great stockpiles of newer and read-to-use WMDs. Those would be the more significant finds...

If Republicans said the war is now about the War on Terror, than I would say it's that particular party that has changed its tune, which has been the point of some folks.

[Sarge]

Exactly...

The military's definition of WMD's are nukes... FYI.

The other news services are probably slow to report because FOX news has a history of jumping the gun on WMD's being found if you guys remember...

Uh, no.

These fall under WMD's. VX, sarin and other chenical nervre agents are WMD

[Sarge]

This stuff is small potatos really. I'm waiting until they find the nasty biological stuff we saw them moving around.

But in the meantime some of you have some crow to eat

[chomerics]

Maybe you misspoke, but, no, it's not at all hypocritical to use violated U.N. sanctions to, in part, justify war against a country. The expectation a country like Iraq has to adhere to those sanctions requires some element of action should they not. They didn't. Action was taken by the country strong enough to do so.

kind of revisionist history Art, and why am I not surprised you miss the hypocrisy of using a governing bodies rules as "evidence", then breaking the rules of the same governing body by ILLEGALLY (yes according to UN charter) invading a country based on lies and propaganda. But don't let the fact that Saddam was complying with all the weapons inspections sway your perverted and hypocritical viewpoint. You are after all a republican, it is in your nature.

Liberals, sadly and normally, fall on the hypocritical side of a debate, suggesting the U.N. should be authorized to do something, yet, never actually wanting consequences should it never get done.

No Art, actually abiding by the rules they set up and enforce for one. Here is an idea, a man is evading the IRS, yet they do nothing about it. You complain to the IRS about the man evading his taxes, you send them all the necessary paperwork which shows he is evading his taxes, yet they still do nothing. Is it up to you to kidnap the man, create a makeshift jail in your basement and

We believe in consequences. Liberals do not.

You only believe in consequences when it suits you purpose, or do you not want to get into the entire state of the corrupt GOP now

That the U.N. is a corrupt, useless organization is well understood,

Then how can you JUSTIFY an invasion of a country based on their rules, when they do not even vote to invade?

What republicans, like yourself, fail to understand is diplomacy and hop it works. You do not understand the slightest bit about world politics and the consequences of your actions as a nation, and your failed diplomacy is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Lest you forget Saddam was our ally under republicans, and the fact that he was committing genocide was ignored by your party because an enemy of an enemy is your friend right? That is your TRUE failing in belief, and it has come back to bite us 100fold.

The use of violated resolutions should burn you guys deep. We already know how crippled this organization is by corruption and "veto" power by any one of five countries for anything it doesn't like, which of course, is good, cause, no way we'd want to be held to the whim of France on something.

If you don't want to abide by the UN's rules, then you don't get to use their laws as a justification, it is that simple. Come up with another reason for the invasion, but invoking Saddam broke a UN resolution is more of a joke then you think the UN is. Like I said, it must PAIN you to no end that you are invoking UN rules as a justification because everything else this war was based on was lies and doctored "intel" cherry picked to make it look like a non threat was actually a threat.

[Pskins]

Look at the source of the article -Foxnews- I mean come on, If you believe ANYTHING these nutcases say you would believe a three legged horse could win the Kentucky derby.

[gchwood]

If Republicans said the war is now about the War on Terror, than I would say it's that particular party that has changed its tune, which has been the point of some folks.

I dunno, I think it was kind of blatant that we wanted to get Saddam out of power, because of his ability to use the weapons of mass destruction and his ties with Terrorist organizations. We went in, we found the WMDs, we removed Saddam, now we are helping them get on their feet and fight terrorism themselves. Seems that we were and still are fighting the war on terrorism to me, nothing has changed

[gchwood]

Look at the source of the article -Foxnews- I mean come on, If you believe ANYTHING these nutcases say you would believe a three legged horse could win the Kentucky derby.

AS compared to CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe et al?

[Destino]

But in the meantime some of you have some crow to eat

This thread is laughable, as is your serving up crow.

From the article: (read it until it sinks in)

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

I hope we do find WMD - it will do much to restore lost credibility. Until then let's be honest enough to realize this isn't the big news people are playing it to be. We found old unusable waste - this find was more of an enviromental cleanup then anything else.

[chomerics]

This stuff is small potatos really. I'm waiting until they find the nasty biological stuff we saw them moving around.

But in the meantime some of you have some crow to eat

STILL clinging to that worldnetdaily article Sarge? My god, you'd think after three years, you'd understand they were full of crap, oh wait. . .that's right, you saw intel that told you where they were right? Remember that thread? So what about the crow you owe everyone here for your rants about those "classified documents" you supposedly saw which would be public in a few days? We're still waiting for you to eat some crow for that one, but I am not surprised you never fessed up and admitted you were full of crap.

Read the post of Destino and let it sink in for a while, maybe read it four or five times, because you seem to have a hard time acceppting things for what they truly are.

[chomerics]

Look at the source of the article -Foxnews- I mean come on, If you believe ANYTHING these nutcases say you would believe a three legged horse could win the Kentucky derby.

Ummmm, a three legged horse DID win the Kentucky Derby this year

[nelms]

I agree with bird 1972!

The whole Iraq invasion confuses me. Initially, it seemed it was about these WMDs, but now it's called the War on Terror, or freedom for Iraq. Does anybody know what it's really about? And if so, what are the conditions for victory? How do we know when we've won?

You know, is it really that difficult to understand that the Iraq war is being fought for more than just ONE reason? Really, is that so difficult for libs to understand? President Bush has laid out, on many occasions, why we are fighting this war. Libs just don't want to believe it.

In WWII, did we fight that war just because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Hell no. There were at least a half dozen reasons why that war was fought. Same goes for Iraq.

[Destino]

You know, is it really that difficult to understand that the Iraq war is being fought for more than just ONE reason? Really, is that so difficult for libs to understand? President Bush has laid out, on many occasions, why we are fighting this war. Libs just don't want to believe it.

In WWII, did we fight that war just because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Hell no. There were at least a half dozen reasons why that war was fought. Same goes for Iraq.

Comparing Iraq to WWII? There were many reason to fight but the reason the US fought is clear as day. Japan bombed us and declared war followed soon after by Germany declaring war. The US never had a choice in the matter, war was declared on us like it or not. The preemptive doctrine is not comparible to a WWII. I see it as similar to cold war era conflicts based on the domino theory, wars fought to prevent something from happening in the future.

[ZoEd]

kind of revisionist history Art, and why am I not surprised you miss the hypocrisy of using a governing bodies rules as "evidence", then breaking the rules of the same governing body by ILLEGALLY (yes according to UN charter) invading a country based on lies and propaganda. But don't let the fact that Saddam was complying with all the weapons inspections sway your perverted and hypocritical viewpoint. You are after all a republican, it is in your nature.

Chom have to disagree with you here buddy. I was in Iraq in 99 and our fighter jets were shooting down aircraft, radar and SAM sites on almost a daily basis. Just because it wasn't news didn't mean it wasn't happening (I watched the videos). In the No Fly Zone it was against sanctions for enemy aircraft to fly and any radar or missle sites to be active or track US aircraft. These sanctions were constantly disobeyed.

Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and UN since 91 and it never stopped. The UN didn't do anything about it because half of its members, including Annan's son, were in bed with Saddam and were getting rich off his oil. Should we ignore the documents found connecting France and Germany to illegal oil for food transactions? Of course the UN didn't want us to invade Iraq, it derailed their gravy train. :2cents:

[nelms]

Comparing Iraq to WWII? There were many reason to fight but the reason the US fought is clear as day. Japan bombed us and declared war followed soon after by Germany declaring war. The US never had a choice in the matter, war was declared on us like it or not. The preemptive doctrine is not comparible to a WWII. I see it as similar to cold war era conflicts based on the domino theory, wars fought to prevent something from happening in the future.

War was declared on us on 9/11 or did you forget that? And that enemy lives and breathes in more places than the mountains of Afghanistan. Our invasion of Iraq, among many other things, has put the extremist countries like Iran and Syria on notice. Action speak louder than words. It could happen to them just as easily as it happened to Saddam.

[ZoEd]

This thread is laughable, as is your serving up crow.

From the article: (read it until it sinks in)

I hope we do find WMD - it will do much to restore lost credibility. Until then let's be honest enough to realize this isn't the big news people are playing it to be. We found old unusable waste - this find was more of an enviromental cleanup then anything else.

Some of that unusable waste was put into a roadside bomb and several soldiers were exposed and had to be treated.

Got a little story for the posters who think their isn't a possibility that WMD can be hidden in Iraq. Did you know that us soldiers uncovered two MIG fighter jets buried in the sand in an area that we had been occupying and working in for months. If they can bury two fighter jets in the sand going undisturbed for months what do you think the chances are that a couple hundred barrels of sarin could be just as easily be covered up.

Bottom line Saddam is an SOB and has done things to his country that are unforgivable. We've sucessfully eliminated him and given Iraq a chance for a fresh start. I've heard it from the mouths of the people living in that country, I don't need Fox or CNN to tell me. Iraq is a better place, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. Yes their are leaders in other countries just as bad that should be removed, hopefully they're next.

[Destino]

War was declared on us on 9/11 or did you forget that?

I have not and never will forget 9/11 Nelms. I was in spitting distance of the Pentagon when it happened and saw the smoke before the news reports told the world what had happened. It was terrible and people were standing in the street with a "OMG" look on their faces while others racing home flooded the streets with traffic.

The problem is Iraq wasn't behind 9/11. Islamic extremism declared war on the west that before that day, but that event just made sure everyone else caught on and realized what a serious enemy we faced. Iraq, interestingly enough, actively oppressed religious extremism and Saddam was a hated enemy of Osama. Look it up if you don't believe me.

And that enemy lives and breathes in more places than the mountains of Afghanistan. Our invasion of Iraq, among many other things, has put the extremist countries like Iran and Syria on notice. Action speak louder than words. It could happen to them just as easily as it happened to Saddam.

I agree that action was needed following 9/11. I was one of those people shocked and somewhat upset that bombs weren't dropping on 9/12. I was annoyed when we gave Afghanistan some time to decide if they wanted to turn over Osama because I felt they were guilty as well.

The problem with Iraq IMO was never WMD. US leaders used that because they needed a reason the people would get behind and linking it to terrorism was easy. I think the problem was that we had too many capable enemies in the middle east and couldn't both deal with them and Saddam at the same time. Iraq was weak after years of sanctions and the easier enemy to remove from the playing field. It's actually a sound strategy if you see the conflict with Islamic extremism as very long lasting. Would have gone great had the strategy for after the invasion been better.

[chomerics]

Chom have to disagree with you here buddy. I was in Iraq in 99 and our fighter jets were shooting down aircraft, radar and SAM sites on almost a daily basis. Just because it wasn't news didn't mean it wasn't happening (I watched the videos). In the No Fly Zone it was against sanctions for enemy aircraft to fly and any radar or missle sites to be active or track US aircraft. These sanctions were constantly disobeyed.

I don't disagree with you, and I think he was a piss-ant tyrant, but using the UN for a justification for invading is a joke.

Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and UN since 91 and it never stopped. The UN didn't do anything about it because half of its members, including Annan's son, were in bed with Saddam and were getting rich off his oil. Should we ignore the documents found connecting France and Germany to illegal oil for food transactions? Of course the UN didn't want us to invade Iraq, it derailed their gravy train. :2cents:

I don't think that is why they didn't want to invade, it is a convenient excuse but the truth in the matter is that they knew what an invasion would entail. Our generals, and many people in the military warned of this exact outcome in Iraq, and it is the reason we never invaded in the first war, the UN had the same outlook. The best course of action was to continue sanctions, and to keep him contained. He was no where near a threat to the area, as he was to busy trying to play cat and mouse with the UN to worry about anything else. Their own weapons inspection teams couldn't find anything, and they were allowed access to everywhere they asked. He was complying with what they wanted, and he was scared. We invaded when it looked like we wouldn't find anything, but we made our mind up to invade Iraq way WAY before Powel brought our case before the UN.